{"title":"模拟不太完美的用户","authors":"W. Hudson","doi":"10.1145/967260.967270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Maybe it is my age, but the assumptions that I hear made in design meetings about users and their activities completely baffle me. Team members will happily while away the time exchanging war stories about \" stupid \" things users do, but when they return to the design of the system in hand, it is always for the perfect user. It never seems to occur to many developers that these supposedly \" stupid \" things are done by perfectly typical users under normal conditions of use. Most software and many web sites are still designed for some fictional perfect user, as shown in the illustration. What we need is some means of convincing developers that they should not rely on their own naïve concepts of user capabilities. There are a few possibilities: • Insist that developers attend usability tests of their work or view video highlights. This may well be the most effective approach, but putting developers in the same room as failing users can have some unpleasant side-effects (\" No! Not like that! \" has been heard on more than one occasion.) • Send developers on \" cogni-tive awareness \" courses such as those run by Dr Tom Hewitt at various venues. (I reviewed his seminar at UIE's 2001 Boston conference this time last year.) These courses may convince some of the fallibility of human cognition, but \" hard core \" developers may still fail to see the connection between these issues and the usability of their designs. • Attempt to provide realistic simulations of average users. It is this last point that I would like to explore a bit further. Work of this type has been successfully done in certain specialist fields. For example, the Third Age Suit the designers of the Ford Focus to experience first hand some of the problems old age brings in the use of cars. The suit deliberately restricts some movements and makes others noticeably more difficult. Gloves and modified glasses simulate a reduction in tactile and visual perception. The overall effect is far more persuasive than the other methods in our list. The difficulties that Ford faced are similar to ours. Automotive designers are typically young males, with no real appreciation of the difficulties that can occur in other parts of the population. Software to simulate the experience of being a real user (rather than a product's designer) may be just as …","PeriodicalId":7070,"journal":{"name":"ACM Sigchi Bulletin","volume":"32 1","pages":"7 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Simulating the less-than-perfect user\",\"authors\":\"W. Hudson\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/967260.967270\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Maybe it is my age, but the assumptions that I hear made in design meetings about users and their activities completely baffle me. Team members will happily while away the time exchanging war stories about \\\" stupid \\\" things users do, but when they return to the design of the system in hand, it is always for the perfect user. It never seems to occur to many developers that these supposedly \\\" stupid \\\" things are done by perfectly typical users under normal conditions of use. Most software and many web sites are still designed for some fictional perfect user, as shown in the illustration. What we need is some means of convincing developers that they should not rely on their own naïve concepts of user capabilities. There are a few possibilities: • Insist that developers attend usability tests of their work or view video highlights. This may well be the most effective approach, but putting developers in the same room as failing users can have some unpleasant side-effects (\\\" No! Not like that! \\\" has been heard on more than one occasion.) • Send developers on \\\" cogni-tive awareness \\\" courses such as those run by Dr Tom Hewitt at various venues. (I reviewed his seminar at UIE's 2001 Boston conference this time last year.) These courses may convince some of the fallibility of human cognition, but \\\" hard core \\\" developers may still fail to see the connection between these issues and the usability of their designs. • Attempt to provide realistic simulations of average users. It is this last point that I would like to explore a bit further. Work of this type has been successfully done in certain specialist fields. For example, the Third Age Suit the designers of the Ford Focus to experience first hand some of the problems old age brings in the use of cars. The suit deliberately restricts some movements and makes others noticeably more difficult. Gloves and modified glasses simulate a reduction in tactile and visual perception. The overall effect is far more persuasive than the other methods in our list. The difficulties that Ford faced are similar to ours. Automotive designers are typically young males, with no real appreciation of the difficulties that can occur in other parts of the population. Software to simulate the experience of being a real user (rather than a product's designer) may be just as …\",\"PeriodicalId\":7070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Sigchi Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"7 - 7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Sigchi Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/967260.967270\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Sigchi Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/967260.967270","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
也许是因为我的年龄,但我在设计会议上听到的关于用户及其活动的假设完全让我困惑。团队成员会愉快地消磨时间,交换关于用户做的“愚蠢”事情的故事,但是当他们回到手上的系统设计时,它总是为完美的用户设计的。许多开发人员似乎从来没有想到,这些所谓的“愚蠢”的事情是由完全典型的用户在正常使用条件下完成的。大多数软件和许多网站仍然是为一些虚构的完美用户而设计的,如图所示。我们需要的是一些方法来说服开发人员,他们不应该依赖于他们自己的naïve用户功能概念。有几种可能性:•坚持要求开发人员参加他们工作的可用性测试或观看视频集锦。这可能是最有效的方法,但将开发人员与失败的用户放在同一个房间可能会产生一些令人不快的副作用(“不!不是那样的!)•让开发人员参加“认知意识”课程,比如汤姆•休伊特博士(Dr Tom Hewitt)在不同场所开设的课程。(去年的这个时候,我在UIE 2001年波士顿会议上回顾了他的研讨会。)这些课程可能会让人相信人类认知的不可靠性,但“硬核”开发者可能仍然看不到这些问题与他们设计的可用性之间的联系。•尝试提供普通用户的真实模拟。这是我想进一步探讨的最后一点。这类工作在某些专门领域已经成功地完成了。例如,《第三时代》让福特福克斯的设计师们亲身体验老年汽车使用带来的一些问题。这套服装故意限制了一些动作,并明显增加了其他动作的难度。手套和改良眼镜模拟触觉和视觉感知的减少。整体效果比我们列出的其他方法更有说服力。福特面临的困难与我们相似。汽车设计师通常都是年轻男性,他们没有真正意识到其他人群可能遇到的困难。模拟真实用户(而不是产品设计师)体验的软件可能就像……
Maybe it is my age, but the assumptions that I hear made in design meetings about users and their activities completely baffle me. Team members will happily while away the time exchanging war stories about " stupid " things users do, but when they return to the design of the system in hand, it is always for the perfect user. It never seems to occur to many developers that these supposedly " stupid " things are done by perfectly typical users under normal conditions of use. Most software and many web sites are still designed for some fictional perfect user, as shown in the illustration. What we need is some means of convincing developers that they should not rely on their own naïve concepts of user capabilities. There are a few possibilities: • Insist that developers attend usability tests of their work or view video highlights. This may well be the most effective approach, but putting developers in the same room as failing users can have some unpleasant side-effects (" No! Not like that! " has been heard on more than one occasion.) • Send developers on " cogni-tive awareness " courses such as those run by Dr Tom Hewitt at various venues. (I reviewed his seminar at UIE's 2001 Boston conference this time last year.) These courses may convince some of the fallibility of human cognition, but " hard core " developers may still fail to see the connection between these issues and the usability of their designs. • Attempt to provide realistic simulations of average users. It is this last point that I would like to explore a bit further. Work of this type has been successfully done in certain specialist fields. For example, the Third Age Suit the designers of the Ford Focus to experience first hand some of the problems old age brings in the use of cars. The suit deliberately restricts some movements and makes others noticeably more difficult. Gloves and modified glasses simulate a reduction in tactile and visual perception. The overall effect is far more persuasive than the other methods in our list. The difficulties that Ford faced are similar to ours. Automotive designers are typically young males, with no real appreciation of the difficulties that can occur in other parts of the population. Software to simulate the experience of being a real user (rather than a product's designer) may be just as …